Project Masterflow: Semantic Text Organization

1. The Core Concept

"Syntax for Thought"

Instead of randomly writing in a file (spaghetti text), Masterflow forces the writer to structure the flow of information. It bridges the gap between natural language (messy, redundant) and programming (strict, logical).

This is not just outlining; it is a programming language for knowledge, meaning, and analysis.

The Goal

To treat writing as engineering. Masterflow forces the writer to "compile" their thoughts before outputting them, reducing "runtime errors" (misunderstandings) for the reader.

2. The Syntax (Tags & Variables)

In Masterflow, you cannot write a sentence without defining its function. This is similar to declaring variables in code.

Basic Tag Library

• [DEF] (Definition): Defines a term to prevent ambiguity.
• [ARG] (Argument): A statement of belief or claim.
• [EVID] (Evidence): Data, source, or fact supporting the [ARG].
• [ACT] (Action): Next steps or commands.
• [RET] (Return): The single value/conclusion passed to the next section.

Example Paragraph in Masterflow

[DEF] "Productivity" = The amount of high-value work finished per hour (not hours sat at desk).

[ARG] We should switch to a 4-day workweek.

[EVID] Microsoft Japan saw a 40% jump in sales per employee during their 4-day experiment.

[ACT] Proposal: Test this schedule for the month of June.

3. The Flow Library (Templates)

Masterflow uses "Flows" (algorithms) to structure the logic of a document.

Flow A: The Dialectic Engine (Hegelian)

Purpose: Finding truth between extremes.

1. Thesis: State the initial idea.
2. Antithesis: State the strongest counter-argument (Steel Man).
3. Friction Point: Identify exactly where they clash (values/facts).
4. Synthesis: Construct a new truth resolving the conflict.

Flow B: The Troubleshooter

Purpose: Fixing a specific problem.

1. [SYMPTOM]: Describe the pain/error.
2. [ISOLATION]: What is NOT the problem?
3. [CAUSE]: The technical root cause.
4. [FIX]: Steps to resolve.
5. [VERIFY]: Test to ensure the fix worked.

Flow C: The Decision Matrix

Purpose: Choosing between options.

1. [GOAL]: The single priority (e.g., Speed vs. Cost).
2. [OPTION A]: Pros/Cons/Weighting.
3. [OPTION B]: Pros/Cons/Weighting.
4. [VERDICT]: The calculated choice.

Flow D: The Recursive "Why"

Purpose: Drill-down analysis.
Observation -> while(cause_exists) { drill_down() } -> Root_Cause

4. The "Compiler" Vision

The unique value proposition of Masterflow is the ability to "debug" text. An IDE (text editor) for Masterflow could flag errors:

1. The Orphan Check: An [ARG] exists without [EVID]. -> Error: Unsubstantiated Claim.
2. The Definition Check: A complex term is used without a [DEF]. -> Error: Ambiguous Terminology.
3. The Return Check: A section ends without a clear conclusion. -> Error: Void Function.

5. Comparative Analysis (Existing Models)

Masterflow acts as the "Operating System" or "Syntax" to implement these established logical frameworks:

1. Toulmin Model: (Legal/Academic) Claim + Data + Warrant.
2. Minto Pyramid: (Business/McKinsey) Answer first + Supporting buckets.
3. IBIS: (Design/Wicked Problems) Issues + Positions + Arguments.
4. Aristotelian Syllogism: (Formal Logic) Major Premise + Minor Premise = Conclusion.

6. Hacker News Launch Draft

Draft content for submitting the idea to the community.

Title Options:

1. Idea: A 'Linter' for English semantics. Treating prose like code.
2. Stop writing spaghetti text: A proposal for semantic flow control.

Post Body:
Instead of randomly writing in a file, we force ourselves to structure the flow.
For example: one section title, N numbers of arguments, and a conclusion.
This is only one kind of flow. We call this system: Masterflow.

This is a kind of programming language, but for knowledge/meaning/analysis.

The Core Concept:
Most natural language writing is "spaghetti code"—unstructured, redundant, and buggy. I am proposing we apply software engineering principles to prose. Just as we have Markdown for formatting (bold, headers, lists), I am imagining a syntax for logic.

Example Syntax:
Instead of a wall of text, a "Masterflow" file might look like this (pseudo-code):

[FLOW: TOULMIN_ARGUMENT]

[DEF "Productivity"] = "Output per hour," not "hours worked."

[CLAIM] We should switch to a 4-day workweek.

   [EVID] Microsoft Japan 2019 study (40% increase in efficiency).

   [EVID] Iceland public sector trials (2015-2019).

   [WARRANT] Rested brains produce higher quality code than tired brains.

[REBUTTAL] "What about client-facing roles?" -> [MITIGATION] Staggered shifts.

[RETURN] Recommendation: Pilot program in Q3.

My Questions for HN:

1. Does this already exist? I know about the Toulmin model and IBIS, but is there a lightweight markup standard (like XML or JSON) specifically designed for human argumentation?
2. The "IDE" aspect: If this is the code, what does the IDE look like? I imagine a text editor that "fails to compile" if you assert an Argument [ARG] without providing Evidence [EVID].
3. Is this worthwhile? or am I just reinventing an incredibly rigid version of outlining?

I had this idea while half-asleep and I’m trying to grasp it before it fades. I’d love to hear how you would structure the syntax.